Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) Test

People who want to examine their assumptions about gender, relationships, and social roles may find the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) Test useful for structured self-reflection. This sexism questionnaire presents statements about dependence, protection, idealization, resentment, and women’s perceived claims to power. The result shows how strongly different forms of gendered belief are endorsed, rather than assigning a single overall label to the respondent.

What This Assessment Explores

Responses cover romantic dependence, protection, equality claims, competition, and gendered assumptions. As an ambivalent sexism assessment, it distinguishes benevolent or paternalistic beliefs from hostile beliefs and shows which expectations are more strongly endorsed.

The displayed dimensions are:

• Heterosexual Intimacy (0-5) captures male dependence and traditional relationship roles: Low endorsement 0-1.6; Moderate endorsement 1.7-3.3; High endorsement 3.4-5.
• Protective Paternalism (0-5) reflects protection-for-status beliefs: Low 0-1.6; Moderate 1.7-3.3; High 3.4-5.
• Complementary Gender Differentiation (0-5) measures beliefs that women’s valued traits compensate for men’s limits: Low endorsement 0-1; Moderate endorsement 2-3; High endorsement 4-5.
• Benevolent Sexism (0-5) reflects idealizing but dependent, patronizing views: Low 0-1.33; Moderate 1.34-3.9; High 3.91-5.
• Hostile Sexism (0-5) reflects beliefs that women seek control or power: Low 0-1.73; Moderate 1.74-4.16; High 4.17-5.

Methodology and Scientific Basis

Each of the 22 statements uses six choices, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The items measure endorsement of beliefs, not factual knowledge. The questionnaire reports subscale scores, but its weighting and answer-to-score conversion are not documented; individual point values should not be inferred.

The 22 statements correspond to the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory developed by Glick and Fiske, while the online result display presents its five component dimensions and subscale scoring. The authors’ 1997 measurement work supports the same distinction. As a benevolent sexism assessment, it treats warmth, protection, and idealization as potentially linked to dependence and unequal roles, rather than assuming sexism is only openly negative.

Cross-cultural findings from Glick and colleagues (2000) support examining both patterns across settings. They clarify the framework but do not establish norms for this online form. Scores are best read as a profile, with higher values indicating stronger endorsement within each displayed range.

Self-report results may shift with mood, experience, social desirability, and willingness to answer candidly. Broader context is needed before drawing conclusions about behavior, relationships, or wider attitudes.